And the year is now 2014 so in 3 more years the American Freedom of Information Act allows the world to view the first Photographs that must be made public of the USS Liberty Massacre where Israel ordered its Army, Navy, and Air Force to destroy our American war vessel by bombs, Torpedoes, Strafing, and Shooting the American Officers and Enlisted Men in International Sea Waters that immediately killed 37, and wounded 170 that have died and been dying from their wounds in the 1967 Israeli 3 Day War.

No Enteral Flame has ever been erected in Arlington National Cemetery for these brave dead American Soldiers, no mention of their sacrifices in any American High School History Books, no President, Senator, or Representative has shown any public display of gratitude for their courage in this conflict, all those who were there and died have been all but forgotten but in 3 years the world will come to know the truth.

President Johnson was suspected of the JFK assasination by conspiracy theorists and the conspiracy to keep quite the USS Liberty Massacre for the last 50 years came on President Johnson’s shift so is there a link between the two conspiracies with the same man involved?

]]>By: winstongatorhttp://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/03/04/the-unintended-consequences-of-cheaper-remittances/comment-page-1/#comment-49379
Thu, 06 Mar 2014 10:17:11 +0000https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23211#comment-49379I think you are missing the cause-effect. As remittances between two countries grow, the cost to send that money goes down. Invariably, remittances for that pair of countries will stop growing, level off, or decline. As new countries emerge as destinations of outgoing funds, their transaction costs will be higher than the traditional destinations. You may also have geographic effects – no matter how electronic business gets, it will be easier to manage transactions between the US and Mexico than the US and China.

Remittances are mostly about to-Mexico transactions. But if you look at the World Bank data: http://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/es timating-outward-remittance-flows-from-t he-us-over-100-billion-a-year
nearly a third of US remittances go to Asia. I would imagine that just comparing costs between Mexico, China, India, the Phillipines and Vietnam, costs to send money to Mexico would be considerably lower than the others.

]]>By: marconickhttp://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/03/04/the-unintended-consequences-of-cheaper-remittances/comment-page-1/#comment-49378
Thu, 06 Mar 2014 06:42:33 +0000https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23211#comment-49378Hi Felix, interesting blog. I was wondering whether you heard about such thing as “the financial crisis”? Is it possible that there is no correlation between prices decreasing and flows dropping in US to Mexico, and that another factor is contributing to the reduction of flows instead?
]]>By: AngryInCalihttp://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/03/04/the-unintended-consequences-of-cheaper-remittances/comment-page-1/#comment-49377
Wed, 05 Mar 2014 03:50:32 +0000https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23211#comment-49377After reading this, I’m unsure if it’s harder for people in the US to send money back to Mexico, so it’s hard for me to see why lower fees are a problem. Sure, some banks have backed out, but has that really been a problem for remitters?

Also, the correlation between rates and growth might simply be statistical or the result of an inefficient market. Are the transfer locales with the highest growth really small, making high rates of growth easy and also implying high costs? Or are they served by an effective monopoly, meaning a competitor can increase usage with just a slight lowering of prices?